FAQ

DISCLAIMER FROM OLD TIME RADIO FOUNDATION

In order to satisfy the attorneys of the world: the articles linked to the FAQ’s are, by no means, to be our professional advice. We are not professionals who would give advice. We are using a common-sense approach in deciding which articles should/could be available to our viewers.
Of course, there are entries available elsewhere which might/would present a different view.
Thank you.

1: What do I need to do/have to survive caregiving?

Manage Stress – Being a caregiver is stressful in itself. However, there are times when you may feel unusually overwhelmed. When this happens, it is time for you to take a time-out and assess your feelings. Once you have a good idea of where your emotions are in the scheme of caregiving, you can create a plan.

If you are just having a stressful moment, you can combat it by taking a two-minute breathing time-out. Take two minutes; breathe in slowly through your nose, and exhale slowly through your mouth. While doing this, close your eyes and take notice of any part of your body that feels tense, while consciously relaxing that part of your body. Hold an image of a peaceful place in your mind. For just a few moments, allow yourself to travel to small paradise, which will allow you some reprieve from momentary stress.

However, if you find yourself snapping at your loved one or feeling angry much of the time, you may need to consider that you need more than just a momentary break. Now is the time to identify your negative emotions and learn the best way to handle them. The sooner you realize the issue and take steps to correct it, the sooner you will feel better and handle your situation in a healthier manner for all involved.

Personal Time – It is important to take time away from caregiving each day. You may need to enlist the help of trusted friends or family members to provide you some relief. On days when no one is available to help you, sneak in some personal time while your loved one naps or after he or she goes to bed. If necessary, look into hiring someone a few times a week, for respite care.

During the time you have alone, don’t try to catch up on other responsibilities that are piling up, such as doing dishes or cleaning the house. This time needs to be about you. Take time to sit outside in the sunshine and absorb some vitamin D. Sit in a quiet corner, and read a few chapters of your favorite novel. Go for a walk. Take a hot bubble bath. Drink a cup of herbal tea. Watch a comedy show. Anything that will allow you to decompress for a half hour or more will provide a great recharge.

Connect with Others – When taking care of loved ones on a full-time basis, it is easy to isolate yourself. Your entire world may begin to revolve around one person. Isolation occurs without warning, so it is important that you are vigilant about connecting with other people. Having friends drop by the house is nice for both you and your loved one. It changes your daily routine a bit. You both have the chance to see new faces and visit with different people.

You can also use this as a way of getting help with chores around the house. Consider asking a neighbor to bring dinner over one night. This gives you the opportunity to visit with more people, while marking a task off your to-do list; and your neighbor will feel good about helping out.

Keep family members in the loop as well. Ask each of them to stop by for a visit on different days and at different times. Have them help with a chore or two as well while they are visiting. If each person does one thing, it may not be much to him or her, but it will sure help lighten your load.

Consider joining a caregiver support group. Some groups allow you to connect with people one-on-one, while others connect online. Joining a local group will get you out of the house and allow you to spend time with others who understand what trials you are facing and may have advice for you. However, joining an online support group gives you the freedom to hop online when you have a free moment or when you need more immediate support.

Health Check – Caregivers often get so involved in taking care of their loved ones that they neglect their own health care. It is important for you to remember that if you are not at your healthiest, you will not be able to give your loved one the best possible care, which he or she deserves.

While it is always important to have regular medical and dental check-ups, it is even more important to go in when you are under increased stress. Your body may feel some effects of additional stress; however, you may not be consciously aware of those changes. For example, you may have high blood pressure, but you have not felt or paid attention to the symptoms. A routine exam may bring these issues to light, so you can begin treatment to keep these stress-related issues under control.

Being a caregiver is one of the hardest jobs you will ever have, but it is also one of the most rewarding. Each day, take some time to do something that you enjoy. Make connections with people. Always keep your scheduled doctor appointments and take care of your health. Take care of yourself first and foremost — always keep in mind that if you are not at the top of your game, you will not be able to give the best care to your loved one.

2. What personal qualities do I need to care for an Alzheimer’s/any dependent loved one?

As our population ages, the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease is soaring. Today, one out of every nine people over 65 has the condition, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
There are more than 9.9 million people caring for someone who has Alzheimer’s — spouses, children, family members, and friends. These are people who give their time with no pay, many making extraordinary sacrifices in order to care for their loved one. It’s a demanding and stressful task.
We spoke with Dr. Elizabeth Edgerly about the challenges caregivers face, and what tools they can use to weather the ups and downs. Dr. Edgerly is chief program officer of the Northern California and Northern Nevada Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association.

1. Patience
It can be difficult to deal with a friend or loved one who is experiencing memory loss or a diminished ability to process information — key symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. As caregiver, you may find yourself having to repeat questions or re-explain earlier discussions, sometimes many times over. Naturally, this can be frustrating.
How to Have a Conversation
• Make eye contact, hold their hand, and speak to them by name.
• Ask questions that can be answered with “yes” or “no.”
• Create a calming environment and limit distractions like television.
“You find yourself saying and doing things you never expected when dealing with a parent or spouse who has cognitive difficulties,” says Dr. Edgerly. “Not everyone is ideally suited to it.”
Keep in mind, though, that the person you’re caring for truly doesn’t have the ability to remember things. Very often, they’re more frustrated than you are.

2. Creativity
“Alzheimer’s is such an individual disease,” says Dr. Edgerly. “You have to be able to act very flexibly.”
Keep Things Simple
• Limit the number of choices you offer your loved one to things you know they like.
• Select clothing that’s easy for them to put on — think elastic and Velcro instead of buttons and zippers.
As the disease progresses, people with Alzheimer’s require more and more help with daily tasks, such as bathing, dressing, and eating. These tasks are made more difficult if the person is confused or agitated. But if you put on your thinking cap, you can find solutions that make these obstacles manageable. For example, if they’re upset or getting agitated, look for pleasant distractions. These could be as simple as music, looking at old photos, or having them help you with a simple task.

3. Stamina
Being a caregiver requires physical and emotional stamina. “You have to manage the highs and lows. You can be pleased when things go well but prepared for the next challenge,” says Dr. Edgerly.
Take Care of Yourself
• Reduce stress through exercise, mindfulness practices, a long soak in the tub, or spending time with friends (even if it’s just a quick lunch).
• Although it can be difficult at times, make sure you are eating a well-rounded diet.
Although it can be difficult at times, make sure you are eating a well-rounded diet.]
A Gallup survey found that 55 percent of caregivers report that they’ve been providing care for three years or more. Then there’s the immediate need for stamina in managing the daily tasks of caring for an individual who increasingly needs more help.
“I think of it as a marathon, not a short distance race,” says Dr. Edgerly. “Along the way, you’ll address different issues and barriers. So you have to have the stamina to make it through.”
It’s important for you to take care of both your physical and mental well-being. That means everything from making sure you’re on top of your own medical and dental care, to eating right and taking time for yourself.

4. Diplomacy
“Money, caregiving, and Alzheimer’s… each are difficult topics in themselves. In this case, we’re talking about all three together,” says Dr. Edgerly.
Often, more than one family member is involved in making decisions on behalf of a parent or spouse who has Alzheimer’s. Decisions include:
• Is it time for our loved one to stop driving, and who’s going to tell them?
• How do we tell our loved one that we have concerns?
• What level of care is needed?
• What services can we afford?
• Who will be responsible for what portion of care?
It’s important to make one decision at a time. You don’t have to make a roadmap for the future in a marathon session. If tensions threaten the decision-making process, seek the intervention of a social worker, a clergy member, or a trusted friend.

5. Joyfulness
Dr. Edgerly reminds us that joyfulness is part of being a caregiver.
“What’s not talked about enough is the joy and positive feelings people get from being a caregiver. We tend to talk more about how stressful and difficult caregiving is,” she says.
“But when we talk to caregivers, many feel really good that they’re able to do this for someone they love.”
Get the Support You Need
Having support is absolutely crucial for caregivers. “I meet many caregivers who are so strong and think they don’t need anyone else,” says Dr. Edgerly. “But it’s impossible and unnecessary to go it alone.” Fortunately, there are many resources for caregivers, including:
Advertisement
As the fastest growing consumer health information site –– with over 40 million monthly visitors –– Healthline’s mission is to be your most trusted ally in your pursuit of health and well-being.
You can depend on us to provide expert content along with genuine caring. Both of which will support, guide, and inspire you toward the best possible health outcomes for you and your family.

3. Just what exactly is the difference between Dementia and Alzheimer’s

The Dementia/Alzheimer’s Connection
Many people use the words “dementia” and “Alzheimer’s disease” interchangeably. However, they’re not the same thing. You can have a form of dementia that is completely unrelated to Alzheimer’s disease.
Although younger people can develop dementia and/or Alzheimer’s disease, your risk increases as you age. Still, neither is considered a normal part of growing older.

Dementia Is a Group of Symptoms
Dementia isn’t a disease. It’s a group of symptoms that affect mental tasks like memory and reasoning. Dementia can be caused by a variety of conditions, the most common of which is Alzheimer’s disease.
As dementia progresses, it can have a devastating impact on the ability to function independently. It’s a major cause of disability for older people, and places an emotional and financial burden on families and caregivers.
The World Health Organization (WHO) says that 35.6 million people around the world are living with dementia.

Signs of Dementia
Early symptoms of dementia can be mild and easily overlooked. It often begins with simple episodes of forgetfulness. People with dementia have trouble keeping track of time and tend to lose their way in familiar settings.
As dementia progresses, forgetfulness and confusion grow. It becomes harder to recall names and faces. Personal care becomes a problem. Obvious signs of dementia include repetitious questioning, inadequate hygiene, and poor decision-making.
In the most advanced stage, dementia patients become unable to care for themselves. Time, place, and people become more confusing. Behavior continues to change and can turn into depression and aggression.

Causes of Dementia
Dementia is a problem of the brain that you’re more likely to develop as you age. Many conditions can cause dementia, including degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s. According to the Cleveland Clinic, Alzheimer’s disease is responsible for 50 to 70 percent of all cases of dementia.
Infections such as HIV can trigger dementia. So can vascular diseases and stroke. Depression and chronic drug use are other possible causes.

Alzheimer’s Is a Disease
Alzheimer’s is a progressive disease of the brain that slowly impairs memory and cognitive function. The exact cause is unknown and there is no cure.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimate that more than five million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease. Although younger people can (and do) get Alzheimer’s, symptoms generally begin after age 60.
The time from diagnosis to death can be as little as three years in people over 80 years old. However, it can be much longer for younger people.

The Alzheimer’s Brain
Damage to the brain begins years before symptoms show. Abnormal protein deposits form plaques and tangles in the brain of someone with Alzheimer’s disease. Connections between cells are lost and they begin to die. In advanced cases, the brain shows significant shrinkage.
It’s impossible to diagnose Alzheimer’s with 100 percent accuracy while a person is alive. The diagnosis can only be confirmed during an autopsy, when the brain is examined under a microscope. However, specialists are able to make the correct diagnosis up to 90 percent of the time, according to the NIH.

Treating Dementia
In some cases, treating the condition that causes dementia may help. Conditions most likely to respond to treatment include dementia caused by drugs, tumors, metabolic disorders, and hypoglycemia.
In most cases, dementia cannot be reversed. However, many forms are treatable. The right medication can help manage dementia, including dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.
Dementia patients can also benefit from supportive services from home health aids and other caregivers. An assisted living facility or nursing home may be necessary as the disease progresses.

Mixed Dementia
Dementia consists of a set of symptoms that can be indicative of more than one underlying condition. Often, patients are found to have multiple conditions that may contribute to dementia. (Although a diagnosis of mixed dementia can only be confirmed upon autopsy.)
Many of these people are thought to have both vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Mixed dementia may become more common as our lifespans increase.
You Asked, We Answered
• My mother repeats the same phrase over and over again. Is this a sign of dementia?- Anonymous
• This could be a sign of dementia. However, it may also be indicative of normal aging or other conditions such as stress, depression, or medication side effect. Dementia by definition would also be associated with functional decline such as forgetting to pay bills or not being able to properly take care of oneself. In order to be evaluated for dementia, she should be referred to a neurologist or neuropsychologist who could perform specialized testing to assess for cognitive impairmen

4. What does the Mayo Clinic say about a care-dependent/Alzheimer’s patient listening to music? Is there a benefit?

How can music help people who have Alzheimer’s disease?
Answers from Jonathan Graff-Radford, M.D.
Research suggests that listening to or singing music can provide emotional and behavioral benefits for people with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia. Musical memories are often preserved in Alzheimer’s disease because key brain areas linked to musical memory are relatively undamaged by the disease.
For example, music can:

Relieve stress

Reduce anxiety and depression

Reduce agitation

Music can also benefit caregivers by reducing anxiety and distress, lightening the mood and providing a way to connect with loved ones who have Alzheimer’s disease — especially those who have difficulty communicating.
If you’d like to use music to help a loved one who has Alzheimer’s disease, consider these tips:
• Think about your loved one’s preferences. What kind of music does your loved one enjoy? What music evokes memories of happy times in his or her life? Involve family and friends by asking them to suggest songs or make playlists.
• Set the mood. To calm your loved one during mealtime or a morning hygiene routine, play music or sing a song that’s soothing. When you’d like to boost your loved one’s mood, use more upbeat or faster paced music.
• Avoid overstimulation. When playing music, eliminate competing noises. Turn off the TV. Shut the door. Set the volume based on your loved one’s hearing ability. Opt for music that isn’t interrupted by commercials, which can cause confusion.
• Encourage movement. Help your loved one to clap along or tap his or her feet to the beat. If possible, consider dancing with your loved one.
• Sing along. Singing along to music together with your loved one can boost the mood and enhance your relationship. Some early studies also suggest musical memory functions differently than other types of memory, and singing can help stimulate unique memories.
• Pay attention to your loved one’s response. If your loved one seems to enjoy particular songs, play them often. If your loved one reacts negatively to a particular song or type of music, choose something else.
Keep in mind that music might not affect your loved one’s cognitive status or quality of life. Further research to better understand the precise effects of music and Alzheimer’s disease is needed.

5. Can music therapy improve the quality of life for a Dementia/care-dependent loved one?

Dementia is a progressive disorder which can lead to the loss of short term memory and a diminished ability to reason, communicate or process information. The frustration these symptoms bring the patient can result in bouts of depression and behavior problems. The burden of dealing with the breadth of these symptoms has led doctors and caregivers to seek out alternative therapies. One of the most popular involves the use of music for dementia.
Music has been seen as a source of healing more publicly since it was used on veterans of WWII. Studies have continued to show the impact music can have on patients suffering from all forms of neurological disorders, including dementia. Its benefits affect both the physical and mental issues that stem from this mental illness.

Why combine music and Dementia?

The many qualities of music tap into different levels of brain function. The limbic system, or the part of the brain responsible for long term memory, remains active even in patients with advanced dementia. Childhood memories of songs are brought out when patients are exposed to the sound of the music and lyrics. Continued therapy has led many to begin tapping their foot to the rhythm, even singing along. Listening to music, singing the words and making music all require different types of brain activity. Although music therapy can not cure dementia, research shows it has the potential to slow the progress by activating the brain and its neurological connections.
Beyond the physical benefit lies the impact on the mental state a person suffering from dementia. The decrease in short term memory, struggles to communicate and reason lead many to become depressed and easily agitated. These men and women become like children. They feel trapped in a mind and body that is not capable of expressing itself or being independent. This leads to a frustration that manifests itself in childlike acting out. It is often these symptoms of dementia that are the hardest for caregivers to handle. The combination of music and dementia has been shown to calm this agitation and increase social interaction. The realization that their minds are still holding on to memories of the life they had also helps ease depression. Music helps them to grasp at something that makes them feel whole again, even if for a short time. A person with a strong mental state is able to respond to other therapies and lessens the weight of their care for their doctors, facilities and family.

The Future of Music and Dementia as an effective Treatment

The research is far from complete in regards to music therapy and its impact on dementia sufferers. The fact that each patient needs the music tailored to their specific situation makes it difficult to do standard trials. However, the well-documented benefits of music therapy for neurological disorders has been substantial enough to lead Medicare to reimburse the cost of the therapy. Medicaid also supports its use in some situations, helping to lift the considerable financial responsibility that plagues these families and care providers.
Music has always been a source of pleasure. It opens up the heart and mind in ways we are just now starting to fully understand. It has been said that music calms the savage beast. It does so much more. It gives dementia sufferers a chance to reconnect with their past memories and with the world around them. For the families and caregivers, music is much more than notes and lyrics, it is a hope strong enough to lean on.

6. What is on the horizon for using music therapy?

Despite many promising leads, new treatments for Alzheimer’s are slow to emerge.By Mayo Clinic Staff

Alzheimer’s treatments currently work by temporarily improving symptoms of memory loss and problems with thinking and reasoning.
These Alzheimer’s treatments boost performance of chemicals in the brain that carry information from one brain cell to another. However, these treatments don’t stop the underlying decline and death of brain cells. As more cells die, Alzheimer’s continues to progress.
Experts are cautiously hopeful about developing Alzheimer’s treatments that can stop or significantly delay the progression of Alzheimer’s. A growing understanding of how the disease disrupts the brain has led to potential Alzheimer’s treatments that short-circuit fundamental disease processes.
Future Alzheimer’s treatments may focus on combinations of medications like those used for many cancers and AIDS rather than a single compound. The following treatment options are among the strategies currently being studied.

Taking aim at plaques

Some of the new Alzheimer’s treatments in development target microscopic clumps of the protein beta-amyloid (plaques). Plaques have long been considered a sign of Alzheimer’s disease.
Two strategies aimed at beta-amyloid include immunizing the body against it and blocking its production:

Immunization strategies may prevent beta-amyloid from clumping into plaques and help the body clear the beta-amyloid from the brain. An early Alzheimer’s vaccine to reach clinical trials mobilized a person’s own immune system to attack beta-amyloid.
Researchers stopped this study ahead of time when some participants developed acute brain inflammation. Although the trial ended before researchers could fully assess the vaccine’s effectiveness, the study demonstrated that beta-amyloid immunization could have a powerful effect on the brain.
Most current immunization studies focus on administering antibodies against beta-amyloid from outside sources instead of enhancing a person’s immune system.
One large research effort is exploring the value of intravenous (IV) infusions of a product derived from donated blood. This product contains naturally occurring anti-amyloid antibodies from the donors. Other studies are investigating laboratory-engineered (monoclonal) antibodies.

Production blockers may reduce the amount of beta-amyloid formed in the brain. Research has shown that beta-amyloid is produced from a “parent protein” in two steps performed by two different enzymes. Several experimental drugs aim to block the activity of the two enzymes.

Keeping tau from tangling

A vital brain cell transport system collapses when a protein called tau twists into microscopic fibers called tangles, which are another common brain abnormality of Alzheimer’s. Researchers are looking at a way to prevent tau from forming tangles.

Reducing inflammation
Alzheimer’s causes chronic, low-level brain cell inflammation. Researchers are studying ways to treat inflammatory processes at work in Alzheimer’s disease.
Studies in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have had varying results, but haven’t confirmed that these drugs prevent or delay progress of Alzheimer’s.

Researching insulin resistance
Researchers are studying the effects of insulin on the brain and brain cell function, and insulin changes in the brain that may be related to Alzheimer’s. A trial is testing an insulin nasal spray to determine if it slows the progression of Alzheimer’s.

Studying the heart-head connection
Growing evidence suggests that brain health is closely linked to heart and blood vessel health. Your arteries nourish your brain. The risk of developing Alzheimer’s appears to increase as a result of many conditions that damage the heart or arteries. These include high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and high cholesterol.
In addition, a strong genetic Alzheimer’s risk factor is one form of a gene for a protein that carries cholesterol in the blood (apolipoprotein E).
A number of studies are exploring how best to build on this heart-head connection. Strategies under investigation include:

Current drugs for heart disease risk factors. Researchers are investigating whether drugs now used to treat high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol may also help people with Alzheimer’s or reduce the risk of developing the disease.

Drugs aimed at new targets. Additional projects are looking more closely at how the connection between heart disease and Alzheimer’s works at the molecular level to find new drug targets.

Lifestyle choices. Researchers have explored whether lifestyle choices with known heart benefits, such as exercising on most days and eating a heart-healthy diet, may help prevent Alzheimer’s disease or delay its onset.

Researching thinking and social activities
Studies research whether thinking (cognitive) activities, such as memory training, may help prevent or delay Alzheimer’s.
Researchers also are studying whether social interaction may positively affect cognitive function.

Speeding treatment development
Developing new medications is a slow and painstaking process. The pace can be especially frustrating for people with Alzheimer’s and their families who are waiting for new treatment options.
To help accelerate discovery, the Coalition Against Major Diseases (CAMD), an alliance of pharmaceutical companies, nonprofit foundations and government advisers, have forged a first-of-its-kind partnership to share data from Alzheimer’s clinical trials.
Researchers anticipate that sharing these data from more than 4,000 study participants will speed development of more-effective therapies.

7. What are some of the best medicines to treat Alzheimer’s? (Of course, there are so many more. As in any medical malady, Alzheimer’s being no different, it is a long road; maybe with NO improvement. EVER. The key word is maybe. Does that mean we sit idly by and do nothing? Of course not.)

The medications used to treat mental decline in people with Alzheimer’s disease are not particularly effective. When compared to a placebo, most people who take one will not experience a meaningful benefit. And it is the rare person who has a significant delay in the worsening of their symptoms over time.
However, there is no way to predict who will get a benefit from one of the five drugs approved to treat Alzheimer’s disease and who will not. So the decision to try one of these drugs should be based on whether any potential benefit is worth the cost, and the risk of side effects.
• Cost. Averaging about $177 to more than $400 per month, the Alzheimer’s disease drugs are costly and may not be worth it if a person takes many other medications for other health conditions. This is true even if insurance or Medicare coverage helps pay since out-of-pocket payments can still be quite steep.
• Side effects. One of the Alzheimer’s medications, tacrine (Cognex), poses a risk of liver damage, so it is now prescribed only rarely. The four other drugs can cause several side effects. Most are minor, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, loss of appetite, muscle cramps, tremor, and weight loss. But for some people, these adverse effects might persist or be intolerable. These medications can also pose more serious side effects in rare cases, such as a slow heart beat, heart block, gastrointestinal bleeding and ulcers, and possibly convulsions or seizures.
Because most people who take an Alzheimer’s medication will receive no meaningful benefit, together with the relatively high price tag and the risk of rare but important safety concerns, we are unable to choose any of these drugs as a Best Buy. However, we realize that many people will want to try one of these medications if somebody they care for is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In that case, it makes sense to try one that has the lowest rate of side effects and is the least expensive since none of the medications has been shown to be more effective than the others. Generic donepezil or generic galantamine meet both criteria. Both have a lower risk of adverse effects and higher tolerability than the other medications, and since they are generic, their price is significantly less. But if the person taking the drug does not show signs of improvement within three months, it is unlikely that they ever will, so the drug should then be stopped.

8. What are some products to improve the quality of life for an Alzheimer’s patient. (This is not an advertisement; these are some of many ideas/concepts that you might want to use.)

About 5.3 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease. Of them, about 5.1 million are over the age of 65. Because of our growing elderly population, those numbers are only going to increase each year. The Alzheimer’s Association projects that, by 2025, the number of senior citizens with the disease will reach 7.1 million — a 40 percent increase from 2015.

Not all people with the disease go into nursing homes or assisted living centers. In fact, many want to live independently. There are many products those people or their caregivers can use to help them exercise their memory and maintain independent living.

Clocks
These can be an important device to help the person keep track of dates and times. Clocks such as this one have large digital faces that spell out the full date. It also has a sharp, nonglare display that can be useful for anyone with visual impairments. In case confusion between different times of day is a persistent issue, this clock tells you whether it is morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime.

Big Calendars
Large print calendars like this one are an effective way to remember important dates. A large wall calendar is also hard to miss, helping anyone to keep track of dates, appointments, and special occasions.

Mind Games
Not only can games be wonderful to keep our minds active, but they can also introduce a social aspect. Match the Shapes is made specifically for people who have dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, as is Match the Dots. The latter involves matching up the dots on domino tiles, which can also trigger positive memories. People who enjoy playing cards might like Match the Suits, which has a similar concept. People who like word games will probably appreciateGrab & Go Word Search puzzles, which feature a simple layout and larger print.

Timed Pillboxes
A good pillbox can prevent confusion and help a person with Alzheimer’s disease ensure that they are taking the right medications at the right time — and not taking pills over and over again. This one has five different alarm times, plus a countdown timer to ensure medication is taken on time.

Picture Phones
Staying connected is important, especially when your friend or loved one has dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. The Memory Phone can be programmed with numbers and images so the user only has to push the person’s picture to call them. VTech makes a phone that has those same features, plus a portable safety pendant that you can use in case you need emergency assistance but can’t reach the phone.

Locators
The Emergency Medical Alert Bracelet might be a good option if the person you are caring for wanders. If the QR code on the bracelet is scanned, the scanner will see a message saying “provide location.” When he or she provides the location via a smart phone, tablet, or computer, any emergency contacts will receive a notification with the patient’s location.
There are plenty of innovative products on the market today that enable those with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or other forms of memory loss to live safely, whether they are fully independent or not. These products not only assist the individual but can offer much needed peace of mind for busy caregivers who want to make sure their loved ones are always safe.

9. Does positive thinking help to diminish/possibly avoid the negative effects of Alzheimer’s?

Believing that older people are useless or weak can actually change your brain in ways that make you more vulnerable to dementia.
Negative thinking can cause your brain to change in ways that increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease.
That’s the conclusion from a new study led by the Yale School of Public Health. At the same time, researchers note that more positive perceptions of aging could also thwart the advance of the brain-destroying disease.
The negative beliefs typically include thinking that aging makes you decrepit or useless as well as other stereotypes about older people in general.
The study is the first of its kind to link brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease to a cultural-based psychosocial risk factor.

Stress and Brain Damage
It’s a kind of biological self-fulfilling prophecy, said Becca Levy, Ph.D., an associate professor of public health and psychology at the Yale School of Public Health. Anxiety about getting older can be internalized. That stress can, in turn, cause brain changes.
“Although the findings are concerning, it is encouraging to realize that these negative beliefs about aging can be mitigated and positive beliefs about aging can be reinforced, so that the adverse impact is not inevitable,” Levy said in a statement.
Our socialization about youth and age starts very young.
It is encouraging to realize that these negative beliefs about aging can be mitigated and positive beliefs about aging can be reinforced.
Dr. Becca Levy, Yale School of Public Health
“We know from other research that children as young as 4 take in the age stereotypes of their culture and then these age stereotypes are reinforced over time,” Levy told Healthline.
The research found that it amounts to culture-based environmental risk factor for Alzheimer’s.
“This seems important because everybody is exposed to the age stereotypes of their culture and we recently found that positive age stereotypes can be bolstered and negative age stereotypes can be reduced,” she said. “This suggests that age stereotypes could be a modifiable risk factor related to Alzheimer’s disease.”

The Science Behind Negative Beliefs
Levy’s team is part of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, the longest-running scientific study on aging in the United States.
Using MRIs to look at the brains of healthy people, they found that those who had more negative beliefs on aging had smaller hippocampi. The hippocampus is a section of the brain vital to memory; a smaller one is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.
When study participants died, scientists examined their brains for amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the clumps and strands of proteins that are calling cards for Alzheimer’s.
They found that people who had more negative beliefs on aging in life had a
In both stages of the study, the researchers controlled for other Alzheimer’s disease risk factors, including general health, age, and a more general tendency to think negatively.
“We found that negative age stereotypes predicted the Alzheimer’s biomarkers above and beyond these factors,” Levy said.
Levy said the researchers hope people try to find ways to promote positive age stereotypes and reduce negative stereotypes associated with aging in media.

10. What are some treatments for Alzheimer’s on the horizon? Should I have hope for future generations?

Despite many promising leads, new treatments for Alzheimer’s are slow to emerge.By Mayo Clinic Staff

Alzheimer’s treatments currently work by temporarily improving symptoms of memory loss and problems with thinking and reasoning.
These Alzheimer’s treatments boost performance of chemicals in the brain that carry information from one brain cell to another. However, these treatments don’t stop the underlying decline and death of brain cells. As more cells die, Alzheimer’s continues to progress.
Experts are cautiously hopeful about developing Alzheimer’s treatments that can stop or significantly delay the progression of Alzheimer’s. A growing understanding of how the disease disrupts the brain has led to potential Alzheimer’s treatments that short-circuit fundamental disease processes.
Future Alzheimer’s treatments may focus on combinations of medications like those used for many cancers and AIDS rather than a single compound. The following treatment options are among the strategies currently being studied.

Taking Aim at Plaques

Some of the new Alzheimer’s treatments in development target microscopic clumps of the protein beta-amyloid (plaques). Plaques have long been considered a sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

Two strategies aimed at beta-amyloid include immunizing the body against it and blocking its production:

Immunization strategies may prevent beta-amyloid from clumping into plaques and help the body clear the beta-amyloid from the brain. An early Alzheimer’s vaccine to reach clinical trials mobilized a person’s own immune system to attack beta-amyloid.Researchers stopped this study ahead of time when some participants developed acute brain inflammation. Although the trial ended before researchers could fully assess the vaccine’s effectiveness, the study demonstrated that beta-amyloid immunization could have a powerful effect on the brain.Most current immunization studies focus on administering antibodies against beta-amyloid from outside sources instead of enhancing a person’s immune system. One large research effort is exploring the value of intravenous (IV) infusions of a product derived from donated blood. This product contains naturally occurring anti-amyloid antibodies from the donors. Other studies are investigating laboratory-engineered (monoclonal) antibodies.

Production blockers may reduce the amount of beta-amyloid formed in the brain. Research has shown that beta-amyloid is produced from a “parent protein” in two steps performed by two different enzymes. Several experimental drugs aim to block the activity of the two enzymes.

Keeping Tau From Tangling

A vital brain cell transport system collapses when a protein called tau twists into microscopic fibers called tangles, which are another common brain abnormality of Alzheimer’s. Researchers are looking at a way to prevent tau from forming tangles.

Studies in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have had varying results, but haven’t confirmed that these drugs prevent or delay progress of Alzheimer’s.

Researching Insulin Resistance – Researchers are studying the effects of insulin on the brain and brain cell function, and insulin changes in the brain that may be related to Alzheimer’s. A trial is testing an insulin nasal spray to determine if it slows the progression of Alzheimer’s.

Studying the Heart-Head connection – Growing evidence suggests that brain health is closely linked to heart and blood vessel health. Your arteries nourish your brain. The risk of developing Alzheimer’s appears to increase as a result of many conditions that damage the heart or arteries. These include high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and high cholesterol. In addition, a strong genetic Alzheimer’s risk factor is one form of a gene for a protein that carries cholesterol in the blood (apolipoprotein E).

A number of studies are exploring how best to build on this heart-head connection. Strategies under investigation include:

Current drugs for heart disease risk factors. Researchers are investigating whether drugs now used to treat high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol may also help people with Alzheimer’s or reduce the risk of developing the disease.

Drugs aimed at new targets. Additional projects are looking more closely at how the connection between heart disease and Alzheimer’s works at the molecular level to find new drug targets.

Lifestyle choices. Researchers have explored whether lifestyle choices with known heart benefits, such as exercising on most days and eating a heart-healthy diet, may help prevent Alzheimer’s disease or delay its onset.

Researching Thinking and Social Activities – Studies research whether thinking (cognitive) activities, such as memory training, may help prevent or delay Alzheimer’s. Researchers also are studying whether social interaction may positively affect cognitive function.

Speeding Treatment Development – Developing new medications is a slow and painstaking process. The pace can be especially frustrating for people with Alzheimer’s and their families who are waiting for new treatment options. To help accelerate discovery, the Coalition Against Major Diseases (CAMD), an alliance of pharmaceutical companies, nonprofit foundations and government advisers, have forged a first-of-its-kind partnership to share data from Alzheimer’s clinical trials. Researchers anticipate that sharing these data from more than 4,000 study participants will speed development of more-effective therapies.

11. Aren’t these old time radio shows proprietary? Is it permissible for me to have them?

Domain 2

It is a principle of American law that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited period of time. Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. “Copyright” literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, slogan, principle, or discovery.
Role of the Copyright Office
The Copyright Office is an office of record, a place where claims to copyright are registered and where documents relating to copyright may be recorded when the requirements of the copyright law are met. The Copyright Office furnishes information about the provisions of the copyright law and the procedures for making a registration or recordation, explains the operations and practices of the Copyright Office, and reports on facts found in the public records of the Office. The Office also administers the mandatory deposit provisions of the copyright law and the various compulsory licensing provisions of the law, which include collecting royalties.
In addition, the Copyright Office provides expert assistance to Congress on intellectual property matters; advises Congress on anticipated changes in U.S. copyright law; analyzes and assists in drafting copyright legislation and legislative reports; provides and undertakes studies for Congress; and offers advice to Congress on compliance with multilateral agreements, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The Office works with the executive branch’s Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, and the Department of Commerce in providing technical expertise in negotiations for international intellectual property agreements; and provides technical assistance to other countries in developing their own copyright laws.
Brief History of the Copyright Office
The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws establishing a system of copyright in the United States. Congress enacted the first federal copyright law in May 1790, and the first work was registered within two weeks. Originally, claims were recorded by clerks of U.S. district courts. Not until 1870 were copyright functions centralized in the Library of Congress under the direction of then Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Rand Spofford. The Copyright Office became a separate department of the Library of Congress in 1897, and Thorvald Solberg was appointed the first Register of Copyrights.
Today the Copyright Office is an important service unit of the Library of Congress. With public offices located at 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., the Office occupies portions of the James Madison Memorial Building and employs approximately 475 people. The Office yearly registers half a million claims to copyright, records more than 11,000 documents containing hundreds of thousands of titles, and collects for later distribution to copyright holders a quarter of a billion dollars in cable television, satellite carrier, and Audio Home Recording Act compulsory license funds. Since 1870, the Copyright Office has registered more than 33,654,000 claims to copyright and mask works and provided many millions of deposits (including books, serials, motion pictures, music, sound recordings, maps, prints, pictures, and computer works) to the collections of the Library of Congress. The Library has been greatly enhanced through the operations of the copyright system, and copyright deposits form the heart of the Library’s Americana collections.
Functions of the Copyright Office
The mission of the Copyright Office is to promote creativity by administering and sustaining an effective national copyright system. While the purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society, the functions of the Copyright Office have grown to include the following:
• Administering the copyright law
The Copyright Office is headed by the Register of Copyrights. Assisting the Register are the general counsel, the associate register for registration and recordation, and the associate register for policy and international affairs, who provide legal advice and counsel to the Register. The chief operating officer coordinates policy and congressional relations and represents the Register of Copyrights in a wide range of management, operational, information technology, policy, and legislative issues.
The Copyright Office examines all applications and deposits presented for the registration of original and renewal copyright claims to determine their acceptability for registration under the provisions of the copyright law and Copyright Office regulations. The Office also records documents related to copyright ownership. In addition, the Office examines claims to mask work protection filed under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 and claims in vessel hull designs filed under the 1998 Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. The Office creates and provides public records of all deposits, registrations, recordations, and other actions. In addition, the Office maintains a directory of service provider agents for notification of claims of infringement as required by section 512(c) of the Copyright Act.
The Copyright Office is responsible for using and enforcing the mandatory deposit requirement of the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Office regulations to acquire works needed for the collections of the Library of Congress. The law requires that two copies of the best edition of every copyrightable work published in the United States be sent to the Copyright Office within three months of publication, whether or not the work is registered.
The Copyright Office is in charge of administering compulsory and statutory licenses. Compulsory licenses are issued for public performances of sound recordings by means of a digital audio transmission; for making and distributing phonorecords; for public performances on coin-operated phonorecord players; and for the use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting. Statutory licenses are issued for secondary transmissions by cable systems; for making ephemeral recordings; for secondary transmissions by satellite carriers for private home viewing; and for secondary transmissions by satellite carriers for local retransmissions. A statutory obligation exists for distribution of digital audio recording devices or media. The Office collects royalty fees from cable operators for retransmitting television and radio broadcasts; from satellite carriers for retransmitting “superstation” and network signals; and from importers or manufacturers who distribute digital audio recording devices or media in the United States. After deducting its full operating costs, the Office invests the balance in interest-bearing securities with the U.S. Treasury for later distribution to copyright owners.
• Creating and maintaining a public record through registration of claims and recordation of documents, including those related to compulsory licenses

The Copyright Office records the copyright facts of all works registered in the Copyright Office as well as the copyright facts of all works deposited but not registered in the Office to comply with the copyright law, thus providing effective reference access to all information of record relating to registrations, deposits, recorded assignments, and other documents. The Office also maintains records of all documents related to copyright ownership that are submitted for recordation.
The archives maintained by the Copyright Office are an important record of America’s cultural and historical heritage. Containing nearly 45 million individual cards, the copyright card catalog housed in the James Madison Memorial Building is an index to copyright registrations in the United States from 1870 through 1977. The copyright card catalog, together with post-1977 automated files, provides an index to copyright registrations in the United States from 1870 to the present. A large part of the literary, musical, artistic, and scientific production of the United States and of many foreign countries is recorded in these files. They are an important supplement to the main catalog of the Library of Congress as a research tool.
Other records that supplement the copyright card catalog include the Catalog of Copyright Entries, which is, in effect, the copyright card catalog published in book form from July 1, 1891, through 1978 and in microfiche from 1979 through 1982. These records from 1978 forward are available for searching over the Internet at www.copyright.gov. Additionally, approximately 150,000 copyright registrations from 1790 through 1870 were registered in the office of the clerk of each U.S. district court. Most of these records are available on microfilm in the Copyright Office.
Researchers may investigate the ownership of a copyright by examining the assignment and related documents index and the online post-1977 records and may obtain copies of original applications and documents for a fee.
The Copyright Office maintains public records of transactions related to the compulsory licenses it administers, including the secondary transmission of copyrighted works on cable television systems and by satellite carriers for private home viewing; the making and distributing of phonorecords; the use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting; public performance of copyrighted music on jukeboxes from 1978-1989; and initial notices of distribution filed by importers or manufacturers of digital audio recording devices or media.
• Providing technical assistance to the Congress and to executive branch agencies

As a service unit of the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch of government. The Office provides copyright policy advice to Congress. At the request of Congress, the Copyright Office advises and assists the Congress in the development of national and international copyright policy; drafts legislation; and prepares technical studies on copyright-related matters.
The Copyright Office works with other U.S. government agencies and international organizations to promote adequate and effective protection of U.S. copyright works internationally. In addition to the Department of State, the Office works with the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in negotiating with foreign countries to improve the copyright protection afforded U.S. authors in these countries, either in bilateral copyright treaties or trade agreements or in multilateral efforts.
• Providing information services to the public
The Copyright Office provides public information and reference services concerning copyrights and recorded documents. It responds to all copyright information and reference requests from the public; provides assistance in registering online claims to copyright; produces and supplies Copyright Office forms and publications; furnishes search reports based on Copyright Office records; prepares certifications and other legal documents; provides for the inspection of works submitted for copyright registration; prepares authorized reproductions of works submitted for registration; and preserves, maintains, and services copyright-related records, including the deposits registered.
The public may visit the Copyright Public Information Office in the Madison Building or call (877) 476-0778 or (202) 707-3000. Recorded information on copyright is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Information specialists are on duty to answer questions in person or by phone or email from 8:30 A.M. to 5 P.M., eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The Copyright Office Forms and Publications Hotline number, (202) 707-9100, is available 24 hours a day to accept requests for specific registration application forms and for any of the large number of informational circulars published by the Copyright Office. Address written inquiries to Library of Congress, Copyright Office-COPUBS, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20559-6304.
Most of the information that the Copyright Office makes available on paper is also available for viewing and downloading from the extensive Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov. In addition, Copyright Office catalog files of copyright registrations from 1978 forward may be examined online through the website.
The public can keep up on developments in the Copyright Office by subscribing to NewsNet, a free electronic mailing list that issues periodic email messages to alert subscribers to hearings, deadlines for comments, new and proposed regulations, new publications, and other copyright-related subjects of interest. Subscribe on the Copyright Office website.
For a fee, members of the public may obtain additional certificates of registration and certified copies of Office records. Copies of deposits may be obtained upon the request of the owner of the copyright in the deposit, by an attorney in connection with litigation involving the copyrighted work, and through a court order issued by a court having jurisdiction in a case in which the copy is to be submitted as evidence. For a fee, the Office will conduct searches of the records and prepare reports on the copyright facts of registrations and recordations. In addition, the Office will assist the public in using the public records of the Office.
• Supporting the Library of Congress by obtaining and making available deposits for the Library’s collections
In 1870 Congress passed a law that centralized the copyright system in the Library of Congress. No legislation was more important to the development of the Library than that law, which required all authors to deposit in the Library two copies of every book, pamphlet, map, print, and piece of music registered in the United States. That partnership, created nearly 140 years ago, has served the nation well. Supplying the information needs of the Congress, the Library of Congress has become the world’s largest library and America’s national library. This great repository of more than 142 million books, photographs, maps, films, documents, sound recordings, computer programs, and other items has been created largely through the operations of the copyright system, which brings deposits of every copyrighted work into the Library.
The Copyright Office also serves as an advisor to the Library on all copyright issues. It supports the collection development needs of the Library through Office deposit regulations. Its partnership extends to many projects, such as the current program to register and deposit copies electronically. The Register of Copyrights also serves as associate Librarian of Congress for copyright services.
• Serving as a resource to the domestic and international copyright communities
The Copyright Office consults with copyright owners, industry and library representatives, bar associations, and other interested parties on issues related to the copyright law. The Copyright Office promotes improved copyright protection for U.S. creative works abroad through its International Copyright Institute. Created within the Copyright Office by Congress in 1988, the International Copyright Institute provides training for high-level officials from developing and newly industrialized countries, and encourages development of effective intellectual property laws and enforcement overseas. The Copyright Office actively cooperates with U.S. business interests and the Department of State in matters concerning international copyright relations, proclamations, and treaties. The Copyright Office represents the interests of the United States at international meetings, including as a member of U.S. delegations.
Registers of Copyright
1. Thorvald Solberg, Register 1897-1930
2. William L. Brown, Acting Register 1930-1934; Register 1934-1936
3. Clement L. Bouvé, Register 1936-1943
4. Richard De Wolf, Acting Register 1944-1945
5. 5. Sam Bass Warner, Register 1945-1951
6. Arthur Fisher, Register 1951-1960
7. Abraham L. Kaminstein, Register 1960-1971
8. George D. Cary, Register 1971-1973
9. Abe A. Goldman, Acting Register 1973
10. Barbara Ringer, Register 1973-1980
11. David Ladd, Register 1980-1985
12. Donald Curran, Acting Register 1985
13. Ralph Oman, Register 1985-1993
14. Barbara Ringer, Acting Register 1993-1994
15. Marybeth Peters, Register 1994-2010
16. Maria Pallante, Register 2011-present
Notable Dates in United States Copyright
August 18, 1787
James Madison submitted to the framers of the Constitution a provision “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time.”
June 23, 1789
First federal bill relating to copyrights (H.R. 10) presented to the first Congress.

May 31, 1790
First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
June 9, 1790
First copyright entry, The Philadelphia Spelling Book by John Barry, registered in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania.
April 29, 1802
Prints added to protected works.
February 3, 1831
First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years.
August 18, 1856
Dramatic compositions added to protected works.
December 31, 1864
President Abraham Lincoln appoints Ainsworth Rand Spofford to be the sixth Librarian of Congress. Spofford served as the de facto Register of Copyrights until the position of Register was created in 1897.
March 3, 1865
Photographs and photographic negatives added to protected works.
July 8, 1870
Second general revision of the copyright law. Copyright activities, including deposit and registration, centralized in the Library of Congress. Works of art added to protected works. Act reserved to authors the right to create certain derivative works including translations and dramatizations. Indexing of the record of registrations began.
March 3, 1891
First U.S. copyright law authorizing establishment of copyright relations with foreign countries. Records of works registered, now called the Catalog of Copyright Entries, published in book form for the first time in July 1891.
January 6, 1897
Music protected against unauthorized public performance.
February 19, 1897
Copyright Office established as a separate department of the Library of Congress. Position of Register of Copyrights created.
July 1, 1909
Effective date of third general revision of the copyright law. Admission of certain classes of unpublished works to copyright registration. Term of statutory protection for a work copyrighted in published form measured from the date of publication of the work. Renewal term extended from 14 to 28 years.

August 24, 1912
Motion pictures, previously registered as photographs, added to classes of protected works.
July 13, 1914
President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed U.S. adherence to Buenos Aires Copyright Convention of 1910, establishing convention protection between the United States and certain Latin American nations.
July 1, 1940
Effective date of transfer of jurisdiction for the registration of commercial prints and labels from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office.
July 30, 1947
Copyright law codified into positive law as title 17 of the U.S. Code.
January 1, 1953
Recording and performing rights extended to nondramatic literary works.
September 16, 1955
Effective date of the coming into force in the United States of the Universal Copyright Convention as signed at Geneva, Switzerland, on September 6, 1952. Proclaimed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Also, date of related changes in title 17 of the U.S. Code.
September 19, 1962
First of nine special acts extending terms of subsisting renewal copyrights pending congressional action on general copyright law revision.

February 15, 1972
Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date.
March 10, 1974
United States became a member of the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms, which came into force on April 18, 1973.

July 10, 1974
United States became party to the 1971 revision of the Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris, France.
October 19, 1976
Fourth general revision of the copyright law signed by President Gerald Ford.
January 1, 1978
Effective date of principal provisions of the 1976 copyright law. The term of protection for works created on or after this date consists of the life of the author and 50 years after the author’s death. Numerous other provisions modernized the law.
December 12, 1980
Copyright law amended regarding computer programs.
May 24, 1982
Section 506(a) amended to provide that persons who infringe copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished as provided in Section 2319 of title 18 of the U.S. Code, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.”
October 4, 1984
Effective date of Record Rental Amendments of 1984. Grants the owner of copyright in a sound recording the right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of phonorecords for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
November 8, 1984
Federal statutory protection for mask works became available under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, with the Copyright Office assuming administrative responsibility. Copyright Office began registration of claims to protection on January 7, 1985.
June 30, 1986
Manufacturing clause of the Copyright Act expired.

March 1, 1989
United States adhered to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

November 15, 1990
Section 511 added to copyright law. Provides that states and state employees and instrumentalities are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for copyright infringement.
December 1, 1990
Effective date of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act. Grants the owner of copyright in computer programs the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the rental, lease, or lending of the program for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

December 1, 1990
Protection extended to architectural works. Section 106A added to copyright law by Visual Artists Rights Act. Grants to visual artists certain moral rights of attribution and integrity.
June 26, 1992
Renewal registration became optional. Works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, automatically renewed even if registration not made.
October 28, 1992
Digital Audio Home Recording Act required serial copy management systems in digital audio recorders and imposed royalties on sale of digital audio recording devices and media. Royalties are collected, invested, and distributed among the owners of sound recording and musical compositions, certain performing artists and/or their representatives. Clarified legality of home taping of analog and digital sound recordings for private noncommercial use.
December 8, 1993
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA) extended retroactive copyright protection to certain motion pictures first fixed in Canada or Mexico between January 1, 1978, and March 1, 1989, and published anywhere without a copyright notice; and/or to any work embodied in them; and made permanent the prohibition of sound recordings rental.
December 17, 1993
Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993 eliminated the CRT and replaced it with ad hoc Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels administered by the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office.
December 8, 1994
Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright to certain foreign works under protection in the source country but in the public domain in the United States; repealed sunset of the Software Rental Amendments Act; and created legal measures to prohibit the unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings of live musical performances and music videos.
November 16, 1997
The No Electronic Theft Act defined “financial gain” in relation to copyright infringement and set penalties for willfully infringing a copyright either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means phonorecords of a certain value.
October 27, 1998
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended the term of copyright protection for most works to the life of the author plus 70 years after the author’s death.
October 28, 1998
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provided for the implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; limited certain online infringement liability for Internet service providers; created an exemption permitting a temporary reproduction of a computer program made by activating a computer in the course of maintenance or repair; clarified the policy role of the
Copyright Office; and created a form of protection for vessel hulls.
November 2, 2002
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act provided for the use of copyrighted works by accredited nonprofit educational institutions in distance education.
November 30, 2004
The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act phased out the Copyright Arbitration Rlyalty Panel system and replaced it with the Copyright Royalty Board
April 27, 2005
The Artists’ Rights and Theft Preservation Act allowed for preregistration of certain works being prepared for commercial distribution.
December 11, 2006
New Copyright Public Records Reading Room opened to the public.
July 1, 2008
Electronic registration on the Copyright Office website made available to the public.

Further Information
The Copyright Office is open to the public Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, except federal holidays. The Copyright Office is located in the Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., near the Capitol South Metro stop. The Public Information Office is in room LM-401, and staff members are available to answer questions, provide circulars, and accept applications for registration. Access for disabled individuals is at the front door on Independence Avenue, S.E.
Copyright Office website
www.copyright.gov
The Copyright Office website makes available electronic registration of claims to copyright through its eCO (electronic Copyright Office) system. Certain copyright registration forms; all informational circulars; the Register’s testimony; announcements; general copyright information; and links to related resources are also found on the website. In addition, the website also provides a means of searching copyright registrations and recorded documents from 1978 forward.
Telephone
Public Information Office: (877) 476-0778 and (202) 707-3000
Staff members are on duty to answer questions by phone from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Recorded information is also available.
Forms and Publications Hotline: (202) 707-9100
The Forms and Publications Hotline is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week registration or informational circulars if you know which forms or circulars you want. If you are unsure which form or circular to order, please call the Public Information Office.
NewsNet
Subscribe to the Copyright Office free electronic mailing list online on the Copyright Office website.
Mailing Address
Library of Congress
Copyright Office-COPUBS
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20559-6304

Domain 3

Encyclopedia of Radio Regulation by Fritz Messere

Regulation of radio began in 1910 when Congress passed modest legislation over the infant wireless communication industry. Following the development of broadcasting and a surge of growth during the 1920s, the Radio Act of 1927 was passed. The act created an independent commission to determine regulatory policy for broadcasting in the United States. The venerable Communications Act of 1934 expanded the powers of the agency and made the Federal Communications Commission the permanent body to determine regulatory policy of radio and television in the United States, subject to Congressional oversight. During the past 90 years, radio regulation has varied from the Department of Commerce providing little oversight to significant FCC oversight of broadcasting. Beginning in the 1980s the Federal Communications Commission began adopting less stringent regulatory policies on broadcasters, replacing specific requirements with market based competition. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 introduced significant relaxation in broadcasting ownership requirements. Today the 1934 Act, amended many times, still provides the overarching schema for American radio regulatory policy. Early Radio Regulation The ‘commerce’ clause of the U. S. Constitution assigned to Congress the task of regulating interstate and foreign commerce. Early radio stations served as basic communication systems, transmitters of messages that were meant to facilitate commerce and protect the health and wellbeing of U. S. citizens. The Wireless Ship Act of 1910 (P.L 262, 61st Congress) reflected Congressional intent to institute modest regulatory requirements on the nascent wireless communications industry. Ocean-going ships traveling to or from the United States were required to have transmitting equipment if more than 60 passengers were on board the ship. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor was given the authority to make additional regulations to secure the execution of the 1910 act. The sinking of the Titanic, with the tragic loss of hundreds of lives, forced congressional action intent on providing compliance for America with its international treaty obligations in wireless communication. The Radio Act of 1912 was the first attempt to apply some comprehensive legislative oversight to the radio industry. The law provided for licensing all transmitting apparatus for interstate or foreign commerce by the Secretary of Commerce, required that each station operator be licensed and that the government prescribe regulations to minimize interference. Other sections of the act provided for licensing of experimental stations, regulation over the type of modulation, prohibition against divulging content of private messages, and for giving preference to distress signals. The Radio Act of 1912 did not foresee or mention radio broadcasting. Public interest/service obligations were not discussed except as they pertained to point-to-point communication. However, the emergence of broadcasting in the early 1920s, with the rapid proliferation of new stations seeking licenses and vying for airtime on an extremely limited allocation of frequencies, created administrative problems for the Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. In 1922, Hoover convened the first of four annual National Radio Conferences designed to elicit voluntary cooperation from broadcasters, radio manufacturers, and interested parties. Attendees realized the inadequacy of the 1912 Act, some calling for better government oversight through more comprehensive legislation. In 1923, a federal appeals court ruled that the Secretary of Commerce did not have the discretionary power to withhold licenses from qualified applicants. As a result, interference on broadcasting channels dramatically increased as the number of stations proliferated; early broadcasting entered a period of chaos without any significant government oversight. Between 1923 and 1924, Hoover expanded the number of frequencies assigned to broadcasting in an attempt to relieve interference conditions. The Secretary, who endorsed the notion of self-regulation, had some success persuading stations to share frequencies, limit power and split the broadcast day. However, despite Hoover’s attempt to facilitate solutions between competing stations and industry interests, a growing dissatisfaction with time allotments and frequencies sharing created problems for Hoover’s policy of ‘associationalism.’ It was becoming apparent to Hoover and the industry that self-regulation could not solve the increasing interference and allocation problems. At the fourth radio conference in November 1925, industry leaders affirmed that ‘public interest’ should be the basis for broadcasting. They also convinced the Secretary to stop issuing new radio licenses. Thus, the licensing provisions of the 1912 Act were suspended under an ad hoc regulatory policy agreed to by government, large radio manufacturing and broadcasting interests. Historian Eric Barnouw notes that Hoover frequently showed favoritism by developing policies that were favorable to large business interests in broadcasting such as RCA, General Electric and Westinghouse. Later, members of Congress leveled criticisms against the Federal Radio Commission that it, too, favored interests of big broadcasters. On April 16, 1926, the Court dealt the final blow to the 1912 Act when it ruled that the Secretary had overstepped his authority. As a result Hoover was powerless to enforce time and frequency requirements on licensees (United States v. Zenith Radio Corp. et. al., 12 F. 2nd 614(N. D. Ill. 1926)). Immediately after the Zenith decision, stations began switching frequencies, increasing power, and ignoring previously agreed upon time-sharing arrangements. Interference levels grew dramatically, particularly at night when signals were prone to long-distance skipping. Amid growing dissatisfaction among broadcasters and the listening public, congressional members passed the Radio Act of 1927. The compromise legislation specifically dealt with broadcasting for the first time. It created a framework for regulating the rapidly growing broadcasting industry investing decision making powers in an independent agency. Seven years later, with the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress merged oversight of wire and wireless communication under the rubric of the Federal Communications Commission. A framework for broadcast oversight and general regulatory policy for broadcasting was established between 1926 and 1934. The Radio Act of 1927 – The Beginning of Broadcast Regulation The Radio Act of 1927 (P.L 632, 69th Congress) was enacted on February 23, 1927. Five days later President Coolidge signed the legislation investing regulatory power in a new temporary independent agency. Authors of the legislation conceived that a newly constituted Federal Radio Commission would be able to resolve numerous interference problems created during the development of broadcasting. Drawing on a combination of earlier legislative efforts introduced by Representative Wallace White of Maine and Washington’s Senator Clarence C. Dill, the compromise legislation provided for station licensing, devising allotments of frequency bands, assigning station wavelengths, and fixed terms for all radio licenses. The legislation also provided for the creation of a temporary commission with authority to designate licensees and regulate station operating times and power output. The act asserted a public interest in broadcasting and public ownership of the airwaves, extended considerable rulemaking capability to the Commission, and provided Commissioners with considerable discretion to decide questions of law and policy. One of the significant outcomes of the 1927 Act, still debated today, was the fact that broadcasters were accorded fewer First Amendment rights than newspapers. The legislation clearly designated the electromagnetic spectrum as part of the public domain, allowing the Commission the power to grant rights to users of the spectrum but forbidding private ownership over communication channels. In addition, extreme interference problems encountered with the breakdown of the 1912 Act suggested that a real scarcity of available channels existed. This complicated the task of the commission to devise a permanent allocation scheme that would suit all political and business constituents. Since the known radio spectrum and limited engineering capabilities could not afford all who wanted to speak an opportunity to do so, the radio commission was empowered to impose rules and regulations limiting the number of entities actually using the airwave. Legislators provided the commission with broad discretionary powers subject to adjudication by the federal courts. Many of the today’s expectations for regulatory policy emanate out of the 1927 legislation. The Radio Act called for a commission comprised of five members, each appointed from and responsible for representing a specific geographical zone of the United States. Congress initially conceived that the agency would dispense with the interference problems within the first year, after which the Commission would become a consultative, quasi-judicial body meeting when necessary. Sections 4 and 9 of the act invoked an undefined public interest standard and gave commissioners the power to license and regulate wireless stations; federal radio stations were exempt from regulatory oversight. Licensing decisions made by the Commission were subject to adjudication by the court of appeals, essentially as a de novo review. Legal scholars point to the fact that oversight was essentially a limited review of specific issues within a narrow class of petitioners. Though the act did not contain specific language to regulate broadcasting ‘chains’ or networks, legislators gave commissioners the ability to ‘make special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain broadcasting’ (sec. 4 (h)). Therefore, whatever control the Commission could impose over radio networks had to be accomplished at the station level. Similarly, the Act dealt with advertising in a minimal fashion. Some historians point to the fact that advertising was not widely accepted in 1926 when the bill was written as one possible reason to explain the apparent oversight in the legislation. Scholars are divided over the effectiveness of the Federal Radio Commission but they generally give the FRC little credit for effecting consistent and strong regulatory policy. During its six-year tenure, relations with Congress were stormy, sometimes to the point of hostility. By the end of its first year, Congressional members who wrote provisions of the act called FRC commissioners ‘cowards’ for their lack of regulatory action. Other critics pointed to flawed decisionmaking based on poor information collection. The FRC’s inability to resolve interference problems and redistribute licenses caused Congress to impose the Davis Amendment, which called for equality of service standards, in the 1928 reauthorization bill. The broadcasting industry, led by RCA, Westinghouse and General Electric succeeded in convincing the FRC that the general framework of broadcasting developed under the Secretary of Commerce should be retained. Robert McChesney points out that reauthorizing the existing commercial stations without redistributing licenses caused many non-commercial licenses to have their allocations and times of operation reduced. At the end of the Federal Radio Commission’s tenure, commercial broadcasting was well established in the United States. Passage of radio legislation clearly reflected the congressional view that the electromagnetic spectrum represented a valuable natural resource that was to be carefully cultivated and conserved for the general population. Zenith v. U. S. had opened the floodgates to far too many licenses, creating substantial interference and chaos for listeners and broadcasters alike. It is not surprising, therefore, that resolution of licensing-related controversies became the first priority of the FRC. Regulatory decisions of the early commission frequently were politically motivated. Client politics stifled regulatory efforts by pitting interests that favored policies that supported the growth of a nascent broadcasting industry on one hand against the desires of congressional members who wanted a solution that redistributed licenses along geographical regions on the other. Thus, partisan politics made the FRC sensitive to criticism from both large industry players and the regional constituents of various members of Congress. Furthermore, because only two of the FRC commissioners were actually confirmed by the Senate during its first term, the initial action of the agency was tentative, depriving the Commission of an opportunity to regulate boldly. The basic regulatory structure embodied in the Radio Act of 1927 became the basis for the permanent body designated under the Communications Act of 1934. The Federal Communications Commission The passage of the Communications Act of 1934 (P.L. 416, 73 Congress) established a permanent commission to oversee and regulate the broadcasting and telecommunications industries. In creating the Federal Communications Commission, Congress invested the permanent agency with the same broad regulatory powers that were given to the FRC. These powers were extended to include wired telecommunications services that had been under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Many of the provisions of the 1927 Act were incorporated word-for-word into Title III of the Communications Act. The language of both the 1927 and 1934 acts allowed the agency to employ a wide variety of sanctions, incentives, and other tools to fulfill regulatory or policy mandates. Court rulings and challenges to the Communications Act and against FCC decisions have helped the agency delineate the extent of its powers. By 1934, broadcasting had evolved into a highly profitable business. The structural components of the network radio system, almost wholly outside the purview of the Federal Radio Commission, had developed into a series of highly successful operations. The breakup of the RCA trust had created powerful forces within the communications industry vying for different segments of the industry. Many of the most powerful broadcasting stations, designated as ‘clear channels’ were licensed to the large broadcasting or radio manufacturing companies, and the Federal Radio Commission’s adoption of a rigid allotment scheme, under General Order 40, solidified the interests of the large broadcasters. The new agency did not intend to upset the broadcasting systems that had developed under the Secretary of Commerce and the FRC. However, Congress provided the new agency with some regulatory flexibility by repealing the specific requirements of the Davis Amendment. The general themes of the 1934 Act exemplified the principles of the New Deal by consolidating federal powers under one agency and centralizing the decision making power for all communications industries. The act is significant because it invested permanent regulatory powers in an independent ‘expert’ agency. The realization that broadcast regulation should not be limited to supervision of interference and other technical aspects was fully apparent to legislators. The newly formed Federal Communications Commission was confronted with the need to develop both an immediate and a long-terms agenda. Immediate tasks included identifying and defining what constituted service in the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity.’ The Federal Radio Commission had developed some regulatory policies but clarification would be needed for long term administrative policy development. As a corollary to this process, the FCC would have to develop reflective criteria to determine whether stations were doing an acceptable job of meeting their public service obligations. Consistent with this goal, the agency would be required to articulate and give meaning to broad phrases such as ‘public interest.’ Secondly, the FCC was now charged with developing a plan for utilizing the expanding electromagnetic spectrum. The years between the creation of the FRC and the FCC yielded important discoveries regarding the extent and usage of the spectrum. The Commission, charged with ‘the larger, more effective use of radio’ (sec 303 g), needed to developed a more complex mechanism for determining which users should be allowed to use what radio band and for what purposes. Different uses would require differing amounts of spectrum space and conflicting requests for spectrum utilization would require the FCC to make determinations for which services and how many users the spectrum could provide for. FCC Annual Reports during the period 1934 through 1939 illustrate that the Commission undertook much more sophisticated record collection than the FRC. Between 1936 and 1937, the Commission required all broadcasters to file comprehensive information regarding income, property investment, number of employees, nature and types of programs. The FCC reported much of the statistical data to Congress during 1938. In that same year, the Commission began the first full-fledged review into the practices of chain broadcasting. The initial years of the FCC reflected the need to collect and collate sufficient data to implement a long-term regulatory policy towards broadcasters. Localism and Trusteeship – A Framework for Broadcast Agenda Setting The broad nature of the language used in the 1927 and 1934 acts did not prescribe specific tests or mandates for users of the radio spectrum. Consequently, it became necessary for the agency to articulate policies that it could use as touchstones for measuring the service of the licensee. Over time these pronouncements, coupled with rules and regulations promulgated by the agency, allowed the Commission to establish a baseline regulatory policy. Early decisions of the FRC and the FCC generally illustrate an ad hoc approach to policymaking, more or less supporting an avowed regulatory interest in localism. Commission pronouncements reflected the importance placed on localism and the conceptualization of a trusteeship model in broadcasting, despite the growing power and programming of the radio networks throughout the 1930s and 1940s. These two principles became the bedrock of federal radio policymaking for many years to come. The Commission realized that defining what constituted acceptable service for a licensee required developing a set of standards that a broadcast licensee could aspire to or be measured against. In Great Lakes Broadcasting Co. (37 F. 2nd 993 (D.C. Cir.), the Radio Commission devised an important set of principles meant to delineate what constituted public service and to inform licensees as to what their obligations would be as trustees using a natural public resource. The principle of trusteeship was based on a rationale of spectrum scarcity. According to the FRC, trusteeship required broadcasters to provide for: [T]he tastes, needs, and desires of all substantial groups among the listening public should be met, in some fair proportion, by a well-rounded program, in which entertainment, consisting of music both classical and lighter grades, religion, education, and instruction, important public events, discussion of public questions, weather, market reports, and news, and matters of interest to all members of the family find a place. In asserting that radio stations were trustees of the public, the FCC also moved to develop a regulatory policy that scrutinized the economic impact that proposed stations had on current trustees. Thus, sometimes the FCC denied licenses when it claimed that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that an applicant had adequate resources. Other times, the FCC refused station applications when a station was financially secure but would appear to provide competition to an existing licensee. Taken as a whole, FCC decisions published between 1934 and 1940 do not illustrate a clear procedure of how the agency evaluated the merits of the potential economic injury nor do they demonstrate a uniform record of policymaking. In apparent ad hoc fashion, the FCC sometimes approved licensee applications where there were existing stations and other times it refused to grant construction permits in cities that had no primary radio service at all. Engineering factors were not critical in many decisions. Encouraging localism became the second fundamental principle for the Federal Communications Commission. This regulatory policy proved useful for several reasons. First, the agency inherited a commercial structure for broadcasting based almost entirely on advertising revenues. Local radio stations affiliated with national network program suppliers frequently found their broadcast schedules manipulated by the same networks who provided stations with high quality programming. Stations without affiliation looked to local community sources for program inspiration. However both network and local programs were being provided to listeners via a local licensee assigned to serve a particular community or a clear channel station meant to serve a wide geographical area. Although the FCC had very limited control over national networks, it discerned that its power to regulate was essentially the power to control local stations, the stations’ relationships with network program suppliers, and the stations’ relationship with the community of license. Thus, policy evaluation based on serving the interests of the city of license provided the FCC with sufficient leverage over the whole of the broadcast industry through station regulation. The Network Case, The Blue Book and Regulatory Policies of the 1940s As the 1930s ended, the FCC expressed concern that radio networks held too much power over licensees through its affiliation agreements and these contracts prevented stations from programming more actively. Analysis of the Commission’s actions during this period illustrates a desire to promulgate regulations which would increase the responsiveness of the local licensees to the listening public, reduce the anti-competitive behavior of the powerful radio networks, and effectively increase competition in local broadcasting. In addition, the Commission wanted to end the competitive advantage NBC held over CBS and the smaller Mutual network as a result of its ability to program both the NBC Red and Blue networks. The Chain Broadcasting Regulations issued in 1941 were challenged by NBC in National Broadcasting Co. et al. v. U. S. (319 U. S. 190 (1943)). The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Frankfurter, upheld the FCC’s authority to regulate the business arrangements between networks and licensees. More importantly, the decision upheld the constitutionality of the Communications Act and reaffirmed the Commission’s presumption that it had substantive discretionary power to regulate broadcasting. The hoped for changes in the relationship between networks and affiliates failed to emerge. Even though the Commission faced increased criticism and oversight hearings between 1942 and 1944, resulting in the resignation or non-reappointment of several commissioners, FCC staff investigated what licensees proposed to program when they filed applications compared to what they actually programmed. The results of the investigation were summarized in ‘The Blue Book.’ The Blue Book restated the Commission’s interpretation of what constituted public interest obligations and articulated four areas of concern: the quantity of sustaining programming aired by the licensee, the broadcast of live-local programs, the creation of programming devoted to the discussion of public issues, and elimination of advertising abuse. While the Blue Book reflected the first attempt by the FCC to articulate a fully developed policy statement regarding what constituted good service, the FCC never fully enforced the quality of service statements it advocated. However, the regulatory significance of the Blue Book can be seen in a number of ways. First it was an attempt to make broadcasters more responsive to their listeners. Thus it articulated the Commission’s view as to what constituted good service. Secondly, the Blue Book started a debate within the industry as broadcasters objected to a perceived governmental attack on their ability to program without censorship or government interference. Thirdly, as an attempt to forestall the promulgation of content based rules, the NAB strengthened its self-regulatory radio code. Finally another outcome of the Blue Book, though perhaps unintended, was that the Commission increased the record keeping requirements for broadcasters. Following the end of the World War II and a period of unparalleled prosperity in broadcasting, the Commission encouraged local competition by rapidly increasing the number of licensees in the standard (AM) broadcast band. Some experts note that the pressure to expand broadcasting may be seen less as a regulatory initiative and more as a result of renewed interest in entertainment due to the end of the depression of the 1930s and the repeal of war priority restrictions. The expansion of radio broadcasting was further enhanced with the FCC’s creation of a new expanded FM band. As the decade drew to a close, the FCC revisited its 20 year old prohibition against licensee advocacy and issued the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ The restatement of the Commission’s editorializing policy for licensees caused substantial debate within the broadcasting community. First Amendment Concerns, Generic Formats and Community Ascertainment Early broadcasting regulators developed ways for evaluating applicants based on speech-neutral criteria including evaluating financial status, technical ability, and a broadcaster’s experience. With the Blue Book and the Fairness Doctrine, the Federal Communications Commission seemed to shift focus toward programming and content requirements. The change in regulatory focus coincided with the decline of network radio and the phenomenal growth of television. The shift in revenue from network to local radio and the increased competition in the AM band forced significant changes in radio programming. As local stations programmed new music formats, morning and afternoon times became major sources of revenue. Stations abandoned the block programming structure typical of network affiliation in favor of generic formats that were stripped across the broadcast week. Some concepts developed in the Blue Book held little significance with new local competition. As a result the FCC issued the 1960 Programming Policy Statement (25 Fed. Reg. 7291; 44 FCC 2303) as a restatement of a licensee’s broadcast obligations. To reflect the changes in the business of radio, sustaining programming requirements were dropped while other programming aspects were updated. The 1960 Programming Policy Statement required broadcasters to discover the ‘tastes, needs, and desires” of the people through a series of local area surveys known as ‘community ascertainment.’ Broadcasters began to realize the growing importance of ascertainment as the Commission revised application forms to reflect the significance it placed on a station’s survey findings. With the 1960 Policy Statement, the Commission delineated a fourteen-point list of major program elements that broadcasters were supposed to provide for the service area. Broadcasters criticized the laundry list approach to programming requirements and the agency itself for using specific ‘quotas’ of programs enumerated in Policy Statement guidelines as a litmus test for automatic license renewal. A decade later the FCC issued a ‘primer’ that placed significance on programming that was responsive to community problems rather than serving “tastes, needs, and desires” of the community. In 1976, the Commission reaffirmed a commitment to the ascertainment process by making it a continuous requirement. Combined with other filing requirements, many felt that the FCC was imposing a significant record keeping and filing burden on licensees. In Congress several oversight committees led examinations of the 1934 Act and the FCC’s regulatory requirements. The constitutional test of the Fairness Doctrine occurred as a result of a November 27, 1964 broadcast when WGGB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania aired a 15 minute broadcast attacking an author who painted an unsympathetic picture of Senator Barry Goldwater. Fred Cook, author of the book, demanded free time to reply to the attack. The Court opinion, written by Justice White, held that the public interest standard imposed an obligation upon broadcasters to discuss both sides of controversial issues. Between 1964 and 1980, the Fairness Doctrine was not rigorously enforced by the FCC, but critics of the Doctrine claim that the specter of a fairness complaint with the potential legal entanglements included frequently prevented broadcasters from airing more controversial programming. Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine claim that broadcasters used the threat of a Fairness complaint as an excuse for not airing more controversial material. However, the Fairness Doctrine was a source of discomfort for broadcasters and First Amendment advocates alike. By the 1980s, because of the increasing competition among stations and with radio deregulation underway, the Commission began looking for a way to repeal the Doctrine. Its attempts met with resistance from some members of Congress who believed that the Doctrine had become part of section 315 of the Communications Act. The Commission finally received the ammunition it was looking for in 1986, when a federal appeals court ruled that the Doctrine was not codified as part of the Act. The FCC acted swiftly. FCC Chairman, Dennis Patrick, the newly installed successor to Mark Fowler, moved to repeal the Fairness Doctrine just as 1987 began. Throughout a thirty-year period from 1950 until 1980, the FCC set policy through implementation of a series of structural rules meant to provide guidelines for broadcasters as to what was or was not acceptable. For example, the FCC ban on indecent language tended to be proscriptive, telling stations what was the boundary of acceptable speech. Cross ownership and simulcasting rules were other examples of agency rulemaking designed to structurally organize the industry. Taken as a whole, the accretion of rules and recordkeeping led broadcasters and policymakers alike to question whether the time was ripe for regulatory reform. Deregulation of Radio Broadcasting The 1980 election of Ronald Reagan ushered in an era of radio deregulation. Radio had grown from a few hundred stations in the 1920s to thousands of stations. FM was providing significant competition for AM radio. Under the lead of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, the agency began a push to deregulate licensing requirements. The debate found currency among broadcasters and listeners alike. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking produced an enormous response with more than 20,000 comments filed. The Federal Communications Commission Report and Order (84 FCC 2nd 968) eliminated advertising and non-entertainment programming guidelines, formal ascertainment, and programming logging requirements. In place of any structural policy for radio regulation, the Commission encouraged ‘marketplace forces’ to provide checks and balances against programming or advertising abuses. Many rules regarding filing requirements were abolished. Prohibitions against station trafficking were eased, license terms were extended and logging requirements were no longer necessary for license holders. In the deregulatory process, radio license renewal literally became a pro forma postcard process, increasing most licensees’ expectations of renewal because stations were no longer required to keep substantive logs of programming efforts. Deregulation combined with an easing of ownership restrictions in the early 1990s reflected the agency’s attempt to make economies of scale work for broadcasters who now faced increasing operating costs and stagnant advertising revenues. Commission Regulation as Ad Hoc Policymaking and a Diminishing Public Trustee Model Robert Britt Horowitz notes that deregulatory policies championed under Fowler mirrored the fifty-year old demands of the broadcasting industry to make the Federal Communications Commission a neutral technical oversight agency. The liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, characterized by the equal time requirements of the Fairness Doctrine faded with the Commission’s deregulatory efforts and the Court’s ruling in CBS v. DNC. With fewer content and structural controls left in place, radio broadcasting illustrated an erosion of the regulatory policy of public trusteeship that characterized the beginning days of radio. The dismantling of the trustee concept combined with the reduction in structural requirements in regulation left radio open to increased competition and liberalization of industrial policy. As an industry sector, there were fewer structural or policy reasons to argue for economic protection and the economic recession of the early 1990s suggested to Congress that radio was ready for further deregulation. Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 eased station ownership limitations although the maximum number of stations allowed in any specific market is still restricted. During the 1990s, large radio group mergers and takeovers have created a few large broadcasting organizations that now dominate the American radio landscape. FCC policy has continued to liberalize radio regulation. Even though deregulation and the easing of ownership restrictions has increased competition among the top radio stations in most radio markets, critics of deregulation note that the FCC has failed to create a diversity of ownership that mirrors the demographic characteristics of the America itself. The number of minority licensees in broadcasting has actually decreased as the number of station licenses has increased despite agency attempts to encourage diversity. Other critics point to the failure of AM stereo and the lack of a digital radio broadcasting standard as indications that the FCC has not been particularly successful in inducing the industry to embrace technological innovations. Pirate radio broadcasters and growing disenchantment against increasingly stratified radio programming led the FCC to create a new low- powered FM broadcasting service, further reinforcing critics arguments that deregulatory policies of the Commission have failed to serve the public interest. The Federal Communications Commission has pursued an ad hoc approach to regulation during its sixty-five year history. The Commission’s decision making can be views from a number of useful perspectives. Politically, the FCC is required to report to Congress periodically regarding its regulatory agenda. Thus, Commission policy can be traced frequently on a track parallel to congressional initiatives. For example, with the growth of radio into a large mature industry, constituent pressure from members of Congress became less significant on the agency and as a result social regulatory or structural policies were relaxed. Congressional intent as manifested in legislative efforts such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 illustrates Congress’ desire to treat radio broadcasting less like public trustee utility sector and more like a price-andentry controlled industry segment. Early critics of the Radio Commission and later the FCC complained that forced social regulation created artificially close ties between the regulatory agency and the broadcasting industry. Under ‘capture theory’ analysis, such a regulatory agency becomes overly concerned with maintaining the economic well being of the public trustees it licenses. The result is the creation of an oligopoly with limited, managed competition. During the 1980s both conservatives and liberals promoted broadcast deregulation as a way to deconstruct the relationship that had developed between the regulators and the maturing broadcasting industry. Since competition creates long term economic uncertainty, deregulation undermines the agency-client relationship. The Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory success can be measured in a number of ways. From an industrial policy perspective, radio is a vibrant industry with several large competitive players owning hundreds of radio stations each. Competition for listeners within specific demographic segments in most medium and large radio markets is fierce. Large radio markets also support many different formats but as the population of a market decreases, so to do the number of listening choices. Critics of the FCC liberalization policies complain that such policies may serve large listening segments but tend to marginalize smaller populations that seek more diversity in programming or increased access to the media to express divergent viewpoints. Whether the Commission should be concerned with First Amendment issues is largely dependent on one’s view of whether social regulation should mandate public access to the airwaves. However, a consequence of the expansion of the number of radio outlets and deregulation as a governmental policy is that these factors undermine the argument for a public trustee model for radio broadcasters. In the long term, radio broadcasting will probably become more concerned with economic modeling and less concerned with the tastes, needs, and desires of the community of license. Cross-references – Federal Radio Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Herbert Hoover, Radio Trust, Chain Broadcasting Regulations, Great Lakes Broadcasting Statement, Red Lion Decision, Fairness Doctrine, Community Ascertainment, The Blue Book, Radio Deregulation, The Radio Act of 1912, The Radio Act of 1927, The Communications Act of 1934, The 1960 Programming Policy Statement, Public Interest Convenience and Necessity, Zenith v. U. S. FURTHER READING Archer, Gleason, L., History of Radio to 1926., New York: Arno Press, 1971. Barnouw, Eric, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States. vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Corn-Revere, Robert. Rationales and Rationalizations: Regulating the electronic media, Washington, D.C.: Media Institute. 1997. Dominick, Joseph R. , Barry L. Sherman, and Fritz Messere., Broadcasting, Cable, The Internet and Beyond: An Introduction to Modern Electronic Media., Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2000. Godfrey, Donald G. and Frederic A. Leigh eds., Historical Dictionary of American Radio, Westport: CN: Greenwood Press, 1998. Horwitz, Robert Britt., The Irony of Regulatory Reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications., New York: Oxford University Press. 1989. Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse., The Policy-Making Process, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1993. McChesney, Robert W., Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U. S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Sterling Christopher H. and John M. Kittross,. Stay Tuned: A Concise History of American Broadcasting, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1978.

Primary Sidebar

SUPPORT OLD TIME RADIO FOUNDATION’S MISSION

As an avid listener to Old Time Radio shows for twenty-five years, Gregory Kamaras, founder of the Old Time Radio Foundation (OTRF), was inspired to share his passion. After donating hundreds of old cassette tapes containing many radio shows from the 40’s and 50’s to a veterans home, he wanted to make these shows available to senior living facilities in an easier format.

The foundation’s goal is to bring Old Time Radio shows and movies of the era to residents of nursing, veteran and hospice residential care facilities. We are looking at modern, easy-to-use technology for seniors to enjoys the sounds of their past at any time. Your tax-deductible donation helps us with product research, marketing, and delivery to veterans and seniors in assisted living facilities across the country.